Contact our Senators to vote against this Judge

[cybermgk]

From NaAGR

 

There’s a Second Amendment landmine that the U.S. Senate is about to step on.

And it could leave a devastating impact on our gun rights.

Hawaii Attorney General and 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, Mark Bennett, was advanced by the Judiciary Committee last week.

Now he’ll go before the full Senate for a vote.

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, his lifetime appointment ensures yet another anti-gun vote on the 9^th Circuit.

Please call your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote against the anti-gun Mark Bennett confirmation.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth: (202) 224-2854

Sen. Dick Durbin: (202) 224-2152

Sadly, Mark Bennett has a troubling history of attacking your gun rights and receiving praise from anti-gun politicians.

Take a look at his record for yourself:

*** Mark Bennett went out of his way to argue AGAINST the right to bear arms in court documents to the District of Columbia v. Heller case, saying:

“The Second Amendment Does Not Apply to State Laws.” ¹

*** While the case was pending, Mark Bennett lamented to the media against the possibility that gun control could be struck down:

“We think that a decision that the Second Amendment prohibits strict gun-control laws is just wrong.” ²

*** When the case was over, Mark Bennett REFUSED to oppose even a single one of Hawaii’s unconstitutional gun controls, standing by gun registration, prohibitions on concealed carry, and radical “assault pistol” bans.³

*** More recently, in official responses to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mark Bennett approved of the notion that your Second Amendment rights are limited, so-called “gun free-zones” are OK, and regulations on gun sales.⁴

*** As Attorney General, Mark Bennett signed on to a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold bans on political free speech – including pro-gun political free speech.⁵

It’s no wonder why anti-gun Democrats were singing Mark Bennett’s praises at his confirmation hearing.

Anti-gun Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
“It was never difficult to work with [Mark Bennett].” ⁶

<sup>It’s no secret that the 9th Circuit Court is already blatantly anti-gun.

After regularly upholding many of the same regulations Bennett backed as Attorney General, the precedents set by the 9th Circuit only continue to erode the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Not to mention the direct impact on the rights of millions of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who live in the western third of the country.

President Trump and Senate Republicans have an opportunity to fix that court and change that narrative.

And it starts with Senators voting NO on Mark Bennet.

That’s where you come in.

Please call your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote against the anti-gun Mark Bennett confirmation.</sup>

<sup>Sen. Tammy Duckworth: (202) 224-2854

Sen. Dick Durbin: (202) 224-2152</sup>

<sup>Tell them his confirmation will lead to further gutting of the Second Amendment.

The Senate could vote on him as early as this week, so please act quickly.

Only pressure from National Association for Gun Rights members and supporters like you can help defeat this anti-gun nominee.

So I hope you’ll call today.</sup>

[bmyers]

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

[Twostarrz]

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

I have had 2nd amendment correspondence with both. Duckworthless responded Durbin did not. Tammy is of the opinion that her military experience gives her supreme knowledge of guns and she is all about gun control. Paraphrased of course. I will not waste any more of my time on either one of them. They only care to hear supporting arguments.

[Black Flag]

Contact Durbin and Duckworth and inform them that you are a 2A advocate and request that they get behind this strong supporter of our 2A freedoms.

 

 

Purple, or not...

[RECarry]

Twostarrz, on 17 May 2018 - 07:18 AM, said:

 

bmyers, on 17 May 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

I have had 2nd amendment correspondence with both. Duckworthless responded Durbin did not. Tammy is of the opinion that her military experience gives her supreme knowledge of guns and she is all about gun control. Paraphrased of course. I will not waste any more of my time on either one of them. They only care to hear supporting arguments.

 

 

When you selected the Topic from the pull down list, could you choose "2nd Amendment" or did the list only offer "Guns" or "Gun Violence"? Unless Durbin made changes, his contact page was biased before you even typed a word. That way his staff can skip reading messages and declare "100% of the comments are worried about Guns".

[BobPistol]

Our two senators are robots when it comes to the 2A. Anti. No thinking. Must stick to programming.

[BobPistol]

 

Twostarrz, on 17 May 2018 - 07:18 AM, said:

 

bmyers, on 17 May 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

I have had 2nd amendment correspondence with both. Duckworthless responded Durbin did not. Tammy is of the opinion that her military experience gives her supreme knowledge of guns and she is all about gun control. Paraphrased of course. I will not waste any more of my time on either one of them. They only care to hear supporting arguments.

 

 

When you selected the Topic from the pull down list, could you choose "2nd Amendment" or did the list only offer "Guns" or "Gun Violence"? Unless Durbin made changes, his contact page was biased before you even typed a word. That way his staff can skip reading messages and declare "100% of the comments are worried about Guns".

 

 

Is "Human rights" a choice? Self-defense is a human right.

[cybermgk]

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

It is why I simply said I want them to vote against his confirmation. I didn't bring up 2A at all, but their sworn duties to defend the Constitution, of which this judge would abridge and injure on multiple fronts.

[geo.ulrich]

 

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

I have had 2nd amendment correspondence with both. Duckworthless responded Durbin did not. Tammy is of the opinion that her military experience gives her supreme knowledge of guns and she is all about gun control. Paraphrased of course. I will not waste any more of my time on either one of them. They only care to hear supporting arguments.

 

This is my experience with both of them also. Sen Duckworths response was the same and Sen Durbin being from in town has always been useless

[jrc905]

 

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

It is why I simply said I want them to vote against his confirmation. I didn't bring up 2A at all, but their sworn duties to defend the Constitution, of which this judge would abridge and injure on multiple fronts.

 

 

Unfortunately, as they view it their sworn duty is to uphold the power of the state. As one of their heroes said - "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

[cybermgk]

 

 

Sadly, neither one of our senators care about our gun rights and will gladly vote for him.

It is why I simply said I want them to vote against his confirmation. I didn't bring up 2A at all, but their sworn duties to defend the Constitution, of which this judge would abridge and injure on multiple fronts.

 

 

Unfortunately, as they view it their sworn duty is to uphold the power of the state. As one of their heroes said - "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

 

I a still sent it. All I can do, is all I can do. Additionally, like an ear wig song, or the other side's tactics, if you hear something enough, you start to believe it. LASTLY, one thing you can count on, for almost all politicians, is their want to be reelected. As such, if they think they are going against 'enough' voters, they won't Only way they know, is we voters tell them..

[lilguy]

What the hey&#33;&#33;&#33; is going on? Why would Trump nominate a left wing nutcase to the 9th circuit. The MSM is complaining about the court being load up with constitutional originalists. Where did this guy come from? So we’ve been had by our savior?

[cybermgk]

GOA is adamantly against him as well

 

https://gunowners.org/alert51618.htm

 

I can only hope, this is part of a deal, to get the bunch of pro 2a judges Schumer et al are blocking progress on.

[JDW]

 

""""I have had 2nd amendment correspondence with both. Duckworthless responded Durbin did not. Tammy is of the opinion that her military experience gives her supreme knowledge of guns and she is all about gun control. Paraphrased of course. I will not waste any more of my time on either one of them. They only care to hear supporting arguments.""""

 

Duckworth is a Supreme Leader in all things firearms. LOL To her credit, at least she replies. I got a reply from Durbin's office recently on an email I sent him almost 9 months ago. Come on Slick, you can do better than that.

 

 

 

 

[geo.ulrich]

I just called Sen. Durbins office to see where he stood on the nomination. " At this point he has not come out with a public statement " is what I received from lady on phone.

[Hatchet]

Maybe if the NRA or GOA says they are ion favor of this judge, Duck and Goose will vote against him.

[Euler]

From NaAGR

 

...

 

Take a look at his record for yourself:

*** Mark Bennett went out of his way to argue AGAINST the right to bear arms in court documents to the District of Columbia v. Heller case, saying:

 

"The Second Amendment Does Not Apply to State Laws."

Before the McDonald ruling, that was technically true. The Supreme Court precedent was called the Slaughterhouse Cases. It ruled, in part, that the US Constitution only restricted the Federal government from infringing the rights of individuals. States could infringe as much as they wanted. Through a process called selective incorporation, states could, if they wanted, extend the protections of the US Constitution to their state constitutions. Or they could infringe away, unless the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise in a piecemeal manner, like Sullivan for the 1st amendment or Miranda for the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. IMO a totally unappreciated part of the McDonald ruling is that the entirety of Constitutional protection applies to all individuals and restricts states from infringing, as well as the Federal government, not just for the 2nd amendment, but for all Constitutional protections.

 

Is "Human rights" a choice? Self-defense is a human right.

This hijacks the discussion of Durbin's web site, but human rights are usually defined as internationally-recognized universal rights which can only be suspended on a case-by-case individual basis by some kind of due process. So murder is a violation of a human right, but a death penalty in a criminal trial isn't necessarily so. At the international level, various treaties impose the condition of proportionality on any defense of a state. On an individual level, there's considerable variation from country to country. For example, in the US the right of self defense justifies the use of lethal force. In the UK, use of lethal force by anyone but a cop is prohibited, even in self defense. I (and probably most posters here) would argue that proportionality would justify a lethal self defense in response to a lethal threat. But if that point is under political debate (as it seems to be across the country, including castle laws, stand your ground laws, duty to retreat laws, etc., as well as gun control laws), then that would imply that self defense is not a human right (or at least that anti-2As don't hold it as a human right).